Welcome to every Tarantino movie ever. You either love his style or can't stand it.

Nah, he's just too self indulgent now. Like he's always trying to educate the audience on the different genre of films. And his 2000 mash up films of genres can be at times off putting. The narrative flow gets thrown out of whack, as seen in Basterds and DJango.

90's Tarantino is where it's at ...

This movie had it's moments, but it's way too long of a story given it's a simple revenge flick. Tarantino needs an editor badly, scenes drag and run on too long. I enjoyed it in parts, but the film felt like 4 hours long. Just like Basterds, with it's awkward pacing.

DiCaprio and Sam Jackson steal the show. Not that I don't like Waltz, I just don't get the fascination. He plays the same guy in every film. He's creepy at times in Basterds, but in this film it's just whatever.

Jamie is boring as hell as Django. As is his love interest. This movie would have been way better with the original casting choice, Will Smith. It would've made the film way more entertaining, IMO. The character itself wasn't even likable. He was so selfish, and cared more about himself and his love interest than his slave brothers.

I actually ended up liking DiCaprio's character best. On the surface he's a slave owner, but he doesn't hold resentment or ill will for the african american race. He treats some like animals sure, but it's insinuated he's romantically involved with an african american, and his closest confidant that he respects is Sam Jackson's Uncle Tom character.

Overall, I agree with Mr. Jabbar. Decent flick, but massively over hyped and far from Tarantino's Magnum Opus, Pulp Fiction.

Tarantino has to be the most over rated person in movies these days. He did a couple good films (even if they were largely stealing from foreign films, check out reservoir dogs being a rip) and now just craps out a movie every few years in his "style" which covers for how bad the stories and development are.

I actually ended up liking DiCaprio's character best. On the surface he's a slave owner, but he doesn't hold resentment or ill will for the african american race. He treats some like animals sure, but it's insinuated he's romantically involved with an african american, and his closest confidant that he respects is Sam Jackson's Uncle Tom character.

The guy makes his slaves fight to the death. And when they don't, he has them torn apart by dogs. But it's okay because he doesn't really hate black people?

concerning Waltz: Doc King Schultz definitely is a regression for him. That character bordered on comic relief too many times.
Hans Landa was creepy and frightening as a Nazi commander - he had a psychological edge. His character showed one of the crucial elements of Nazism: the absolute perversion of cultural achievement. Landa is an intellectual, speaks several languages, is eloquent and savvy, but still follows the totalitarian regime and kills Jews for fun. He is the element in yourself that still makes you fear ideology (or so it should).
King Schultz on the other hand is nothing compared to that - someone who kills for money and is funny while doing it. We have seen that hundreds of times in movies.

Will Smith doesn't have that bad ass factor like Jamie at all. He is a way better actor, but no one is going to buy him as cold-blooded killer. Even in Bad Boys 1 and 2 (two of my favorite movies ) he comes off as corny when trying to be tough.

Another complaint I had is that despite the running time, Tarantino took no time to really build Walton Goggins' character into anything really hateable; he doesn't even kill anyone on screen. His prowess with a gun is never established. When Django kills him you just shrug and say "big deal, how was this guy any different than the other 26,000 white guys Django has killed thus far?"

Which, after seeing what Goggins can do in The Shield & Justified, was a total waste of his talent. He coulda been a badass bad guy and made for a good final showdown (which, FFS, Tarantino, Mr. Homage out the Dickhole until you puke, doesn't even HAVE in this movie!), but instead he was reduced to a stock character you know nothing about, don't particularly care about, and certainly don't think is any sort of adversary worth discussing. Maybe the screen time for that was cut out so Tarantino could ensure his surely Academy Award-nominated cameo would fit in.

Another complaint I had is that despite the running time, Tarantino took no time to really build Walton Goggins' character into anything really hateable; he doesn't even kill anyone on screen. His prowess with a gun is never established. When Django kills him you just shrug and say "big deal, how was this guy any different than the other 26,000 white guys Django has killed thus far?"

Which, after seeing what Goggins can do in The Shield & Justified, was a total waste of his talent. He coulda been a badass bad guy and made for a good final showdown (which, FFS, Tarantino, Mr. Homage out the Dickhole until you puke, doesn't even HAVE in this movie!), but instead he was reduced to a stock character you know nothing about, don't particularly care about, and certainly don't think is any sort of adversary worth discussing. Maybe the screen time for that was cut out so Tarantino could ensure his surely Academy Award-nominated cameo would fit in.

Yeah, I was personally okay with Goggins' character's arc because I think I had enough other deplorable people available to divert my attention. Plus Goggins did enough in his time on screen to earn the viewer's collective hatred. That said, I agree that we don't ever necessarily get to see what makes him tick.

I personally think the Goggins' character (Billy Crash) was kind of thrown for a loop the minute Kevin Costner was forced to drop out. Instead of having two characters set to play integral roles in the movie - the aforementioned Billy Crash and Costner's Ace Woody - they were both rolled into one person, played by Goggins. As such, I think certain elements of those characters were dropped in order to hodgepodge together one overall character ball.

For instance, in the script (and possibly filmed but cut) was a scene where Ace Woody (Billy Crash in the movie) carefully surveys the new mandingos in front of Candieland. He's ruthless, murders a few at will, and is shown to have his mandingo expertise very respected by Calvin himself. Woody (Crash) is shown to be a power figure. For one reason or another, I guess Tarentino figured some things had to be sacrificed when meshing two characters into one. Essentially, I think there was more planned for Goggins but instead Tarentino had to patch things together on the fly when Costner dropped, yielding mixed results.

And regarding the lack of a showdown, I agree it seems like something Tarentino would have jumped at. And in fact, one was present in the script, but I personally thought it sounded ridiculous and I'm guessing Tarentino may have felt that way as well, thus leading him to scrap his first showdown idea and never finding another opportunity for one in its place.

Originally in the script (kind of a spoiler for those who haven't seen the film), Django blows up the house as the family approaches, knocking most of them alive and onto their backsides, shaken. Django would then emerge from the smoke and all five survivors (even Ms. Lara) come to the understanding that it's showdown time. Django makes sure they all have guns (Lara is crying and confused about what is happening as someone hands her an extra). Then from what I gathered, Django draws and cuts all five down before even one has a chance to get a shot off, leading to a Dr. Schultz fade-in flashback of him saying, "They'll call you... the fastest gun in the south."

And regarding the lack of a showdown, I agree it seems like something Tarentino would have jumped at. And in fact, one was present in the script, but I personally thought it sounded ridiculous and I'm guessing Tarentino may have felt that way as well, thus leading him to scrap his first showdown idea and never finding another opportunity for one in its place.

Originally in the script (kind of a spoiler for those who haven't seen the film), Django blows up the house as the family approaches the house, knocking most of them alive and onto their backsides, shaken. Django would then emerge from the smoke and all five survivors (even Ms. Lara) come to the understanding that it's showdown time. Django makes sure they all have guns (Lara is crying and confused about what is happening as someone hands her an extra). Then from what I gathered, Django draws and cuts all five down before even one has a chance to get a shot off, leading to a Dr. Schultz fade-in flashback of him saying, "They'll call you... the fastest gun in the south."

.... I can kind of see why that portion was re-written.

I'm not saying it would have been a better ending, but how would that have been any more ridiculous than Django's exploits the rest of the movie?

BTW, William Munny blew away like 6 guys singlehandedly in Unforgiven and it didn't feel 'ridiculous.'

I just saw the movie and although I really enjoyed it for the most part, I noticed this major plot hole that made me really dislike the rest of the film/ending.

Spoilers

When Schultz kills Candie he only fires one bullet from his concealed pistol, so why the hell doesn't he use the second bullet to kill Candie's bodyguard/ armed man in the room and then make his escape along with Django. After killing Candie he was basically waiting for that guy to kill him. This inconsistency absolutely ruined the film for me after that scene.

Btw Schultz's character and actor, Christoph Waltz absolutely carried the movie for the most part. Django's character just seemed so bland and forced; from scared, beaten up slave to the best shot in the south and a complete badass in only one winter.

I just saw the movie and although I really enjoyed it for the most part, I noticed this major plot hole that made me really dislike the rest of the film/ending.

Spoilers

When Schultz kills Candie he only fires one bullet from his concealed pistol, so why the hell doesn't he use the second bullet to kill Candie's bodyguard/ armed man in the room and then make his escape along with Django. After killing Candie he was basically waiting for that guy to kill him. This inconsistency absolutely ruined the film for me after that scene.

Btw Schultz's character and actor, Christoph Waltz absolutely carried the movie for the most part. Django's character just seemed so bland and forced; from scared, beaten up slave to the best shot in the south and a complete badass in only one winter.

i thought it really stunk. i'm sure most everything i could possibly say about it has already been said. mostly it was just too long.

soundtrack was good enough though. and sam jackson's character made me laugh. thats pretty much the extent of any praise i could possibly give it.

im curious about what ljj said at the start of this thread though. one of the things ringing through my mind as i watched this was whether or not i'd merely outgrown tarantino. i know i still dig his first few pics but i haven't seen kill bill or death proof for a while, inglourious if i remember right wasn't as good as it was the first time. so maybe this just is standard qt and, for the most part, the guys just a juvenile moviemaker who managed to make a splash first starting out..?

Plot hole or inconsistency in the story/the character's actions, whatever you want to call it, it's just arguing semantics imo. It still ruined the film for me from that point onwards since it didn't make any sense.